2025:JHHC:19898 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.435 of 2025 …. 1. Dhananjay Shukla aged about 65 years, son of Late Ram Dhari Shukla, resident of village:- Khairant, P.O. Guruwa, P.S. Lesliganj, Dist Palamau, 2. Atul Anand aged 33 years, son of Sri Dhananjay Shukla, resident of village:-Khairant, P.O.- Guruwa, P.S- Lesliganj, Dist: Palamau ……Appellants Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Dipika Devi, aged about 43 years, w/o Late Bablu Prasad Paswan, R/o Sail Refactory colony, Ranchi Road, Marar, P.O.+P.S.-Mandu Dist.-Ramgarh ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate …… Order No.03/15.07.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants by challenging the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in A.B.P No.180/2025 by Sri Vishal Srivastava, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh by which the anticipatory bail application preferred by the appellants has been rejected in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No.59/2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 3(5) of the BNS Act and under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act which is pending in the Court of Sri Vishal Srivastava, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh. 2. As per FIR, lodged on 02.03.2025 by the Informant, one Abhishek Anand, who was Tuition teacher of her children (son Aditya Kumar and daughter Barsha Kumari) since the year 2018, had frequently withdrawn several lakhs of rupees from her bank account and allured her that he will be investing the same in SBI 2025:JHHC:19898 2 mutual fund and also in Insurance in the name of her daughter Barsha Kumari. However, when the Informant in the year 2024 went to bank to withdraw the money from the bank on the eve of marriage of her daughter then she got to know that there is no money in her bank account and on enquiry, she learnt that her entire money has been withdrawn by Abhishek Anand and she also alleged the theft of bank passbook and other articles. It is also alleged that when she talked to Abhishek Anand then he admitted his guilt and promised that he will pay Rs.28,14,813/- by 31.12.2024. She also alleged that in December 2024, an agreement was also executed between the Informant Dipika Devi Abhishek Anand on which Dhananjay Shukla (father of Abhishek Anand) and Atul Anand (brother of Abhishek Anand) and Vivek Kumar (friend of Abhishek Anand) also put their signature. However, when her son went to their house, they abused him in the name of his caste and tried to beat him. Hence, the FIR was lodged by the Informant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are innocent and have committed no offence. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh, is illegal, and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the allegations levelled against the appellants are false and concocted. It is submitted that the appellants have not withdrawn any money from the bank account of the Informant rather the money was withdrawn by the said Abhishek Anand. It is submitted that both the appellants have not put their signature on the Agreement dated 28.11.2024. It is submitted that even as per the Counter Affidavit filed by the Informant which shows that the money is credited in the account of the appellant no.1 and Abhishek Anand on 10.09.2020 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-, 2025:JHHC:19898 3 Rs.7,00,000/- and on 14.09.2020 then a further amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, Rs.6,69,214/- has been credited and at best the Informant got deposited approx. Rs.24,00,000/- in the bank account of Abhishek Anand for which the appellant have got no concern. It is submitted that the allegation for abusing the Informant in the name of her caste by the appellant are false and concocted. It is submitted that whatever be the allegations the same have been levelled against only on Abhishek Anand and hence the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellants. It is submitted that the learned Court below has rightly rejected the prayer of appellant anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the appellant no.1 Dhananjay Shukla was maintaining the bank account along with his son Abhishek Anand. It is submitted that Rs.1,25,000/- has been transferred to Atul Anand i.e. the Appellant No.2 by UPI and both the appellants were aware of the transactions and hence the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the submissions of learned APP, has further submitted that the appellants are also deeply involved in the offence. It is submitted that both the appellants are maintaining the joint account with the main accused Abhishek Anand, who withdrew several lakhs of rupees from the appellant’s bank account. It is submitted that the bank account was jointly held by the Abhishek Anand and the appellant no.1 Dhananjay Shukla which is different from Annexure-A, which is the photocopy of the bank statement of Abhishek Anand and Dhananjay Shukla (i.e. Appellant No.1). It is submitted that an agreement was executed between the Abhishek Anand and the Informant on 28.11.2024, by which it was agreed that the Abhishek Anand will return Rs.28,14,813/- to the 2025:JHHC:19898 4 Informant on or before 31.12.2024 and in which both the appellants were witnesses and signatory. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant has relied upon the judgment passed upon in the Case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2020)13 SCC 791 and submitted that in view of the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the husband of the Informant was Class-IV employee who had died and his retiral benefits had been transferred in the bank account of the Informant. 8. It reveals from the bank statement of the Informant that several lakhs of rupees i.e. Rs.7,00,000/- (Rs. Seven lakhs), Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs) and Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six lakhs) were credited in the joint account of the appellant no.1 Dhananjay Shukla and one Abhishek Anand (who is the own son of appellant no.1). 9. It appears that there was Agreement between the appellant namely Abhishek Anand and the Informant and the appellants also put their signatures on the Agreement before the Notary Public. Although, the same has been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 10. It also appears that the Informant during her subsequent statements recorded at paragraph 4 of the case diary, has stated that the appellant namely Abhishek Anand has withdrawn approx. Rs.45,42,382/- from her bank account on different dates from the year 2019 to different dates. 11. It also appears from the statement of Aditya Kumar, i.e. the son of the Informant, recorded at Para-9 of the Case Diary that the appellant Abhishek Anand had withdrawn Rs.45,42,382/- on different dates. 2025:JHHC:19898 5 12. It also reveals that even the Abhishek Anand had admitted for withdrawn of Rs.11,61,253/- and Rs.10,79,742/- from SBI, Ramgarh Branch while using ATM card and Net Banking and for which an agreement was also prepared for returning of Rs.28,14,813/- which is the market value of the withdrawal by the co accused Abhishek Anand who is the son of appellant no.1 and brother of appellant no.2. 13. It appears that the Informant Pintu Kumar, whose whose statement is recorded in paragraph 10 of the Case Diary has also supported the case of the Informant and supported the allegation that the appellants have abused the son of the Informant in the name of their caste. 14. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant have disputed that the signature of the appellant on Agreement dated 28.11.2024 the same cannot be considered at the time considering the case of anticipatory bail. 15. It appears that the Informant had been cheated huge amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rs. Seven lakhs), Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs) and Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six lakhs) by the appellant in conveyance with one Abhishek Anand, who was the tuition teacher of the son and daughters of the Informant. 16. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in this bail application and the anticipatory bail of the appellants is hereby rejected. 17. The impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed in A.B.P No.180/2025 by Sri Vishal Srivastava, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh is affirmed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-